Help Hugh F-W with his Chicken Out Campaign and his Tesco's battle
09 June 2008, 12:01 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: "Every one should have a friend called Dave - they're the human equivalent of a Swiss Army knife!!"
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help Hugh F-W with his Chicken Out Campaign and his Tesco's battle
09 June 2008, 12:38 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
09 June 2008, 12:57 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WOO HOO I'VE GOT A FAIRY TOKEN :-)
Posts: 2,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 June 2008, 12:59 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the Daily Mash 
I don't know where I stand on this campaign as a) I'm a veggie freak but b) I don't like to see animals being treated cruelly. I think my best bet is to not do anything
I don't know where I stand on this campaign as a) I'm a veggie freak but b) I don't like to see animals being treated cruelly. I think my best bet is to not do anything
Trending Topics
09 June 2008, 03:14 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only eat meat from animals. That way I can be sure that nothing has been killed in the making of my meat.
I would hate to think that meat is produced by the slaughtering of living creatures. That would be most bad. Most bad...
I would hate to think that meat is produced by the slaughtering of living creatures. That would be most bad. Most bad...
09 June 2008, 03:57 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 June 2008, 05:16 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 June 2008, 06:51 PM
#13
"The maudlin, sanctimonious bout of petting-zoo food rights"
This part of AA Gill’s article in the Sunday Times on Jan 27 2008…
“As part of the concerted Channel 4 crusade against murder most fowl, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver have been using a lot of TV time and clout to stop intensive chicken farming. Now, normally I’m all for improving flavour, freshness, goodness and the sexual allure of livestock, but this isn’t about the quality of chicken, it’s about the quality of chicken’s lives, and frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn dish of boiled wattles about the lives of chickens. Giving them a hay bale, a square yard of grass and an hour a day in the chilly drizzle is a bit like putting a bridge table on death row.
If you care about the quality of chickens’ lives, their happiness, there’s only one thing you can morally do: don’t eat them.
Animals are bred into humiliating, unnatural shapes and idiotic imbecility in strange, unnatural habitats, and then die for dinner. Get over it or eat grass. The only thing you should campaign about is whether they’re improved eating. This zoomorphic sentimentality, this Beatrix Pot-au-feu of food, is as dysfunctional and disassociated from the reality of field and table as medical foodies who think that all breakfast is either poison or a cure for cancer.
But it goes with the bosky, cute, Waltons-style sets that Hugh and Jamie make out they live in: gastro-arcadia, where everything is innocent, happy and immortal. It won’t do. Livestock engineering is about human engineering: there are 60m of us. Let’s say 50m want to eat chicken once a week, and you want the chickens to have a square metre of grass to play in. And they take a minimum of five weeks to get fat enough to eat. Well, that’s 25m chickens living on a square metre each, totalling an area roughly the size of Wales. A better use of the principality, we may agree, but it’s not exactly practical. For a start, it’ll be knee-deep in crap by Easter – and, of course, it won’t happen. What might happen is they just make chicken a lot more expensive. That won’t bother Jamie or Hugh or me much; we make a bob or two. But it might make a difference to people who depend on cheap, reliable food: the young, the old and invalids. We have intensive farming for a reason: not just simply for laziness, or because farmers like to work indoors, but because we are an intensive population.
Expensive food will send us back to the 19th century, and the national cuisine will be porridge and bark for the poor, who will get rickets. Chickens and rabbits are the cheapest, quickest and most efficient converters of protein. If you take them out of poor people’s diets, you have to replace them with something. It used to be fish – herring mostly. There is one fishing boat left in Great Yarmouth: start forming a queue now.
What this maudlin, sanctimonious bout of petting-zoo food rights leads to is simply exporting the moral problem. We ban the manufacture of veal, but not the consumption of it. So it is made in Holland, and we drive it back in lorries. We improved pigs’ rights, so our pork comes from Poland. Intensive chickens will be reared by the hungrier nations of the EU, and we will buy them back. And if you aim to make food contented, bespoke and rare, well, that’s just fine and dandy, but, please, will you tell the rest of us what parts of the world you’re planning on ethically starving to death.
I’m thinking of starting a campaign to repatriate chickens to their natural home: India.”
This part of AA Gill’s article in the Sunday Times on Jan 27 2008…
“As part of the concerted Channel 4 crusade against murder most fowl, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver have been using a lot of TV time and clout to stop intensive chicken farming. Now, normally I’m all for improving flavour, freshness, goodness and the sexual allure of livestock, but this isn’t about the quality of chicken, it’s about the quality of chicken’s lives, and frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn dish of boiled wattles about the lives of chickens. Giving them a hay bale, a square yard of grass and an hour a day in the chilly drizzle is a bit like putting a bridge table on death row.
If you care about the quality of chickens’ lives, their happiness, there’s only one thing you can morally do: don’t eat them.
Animals are bred into humiliating, unnatural shapes and idiotic imbecility in strange, unnatural habitats, and then die for dinner. Get over it or eat grass. The only thing you should campaign about is whether they’re improved eating. This zoomorphic sentimentality, this Beatrix Pot-au-feu of food, is as dysfunctional and disassociated from the reality of field and table as medical foodies who think that all breakfast is either poison or a cure for cancer.
But it goes with the bosky, cute, Waltons-style sets that Hugh and Jamie make out they live in: gastro-arcadia, where everything is innocent, happy and immortal. It won’t do. Livestock engineering is about human engineering: there are 60m of us. Let’s say 50m want to eat chicken once a week, and you want the chickens to have a square metre of grass to play in. And they take a minimum of five weeks to get fat enough to eat. Well, that’s 25m chickens living on a square metre each, totalling an area roughly the size of Wales. A better use of the principality, we may agree, but it’s not exactly practical. For a start, it’ll be knee-deep in crap by Easter – and, of course, it won’t happen. What might happen is they just make chicken a lot more expensive. That won’t bother Jamie or Hugh or me much; we make a bob or two. But it might make a difference to people who depend on cheap, reliable food: the young, the old and invalids. We have intensive farming for a reason: not just simply for laziness, or because farmers like to work indoors, but because we are an intensive population.
Expensive food will send us back to the 19th century, and the national cuisine will be porridge and bark for the poor, who will get rickets. Chickens and rabbits are the cheapest, quickest and most efficient converters of protein. If you take them out of poor people’s diets, you have to replace them with something. It used to be fish – herring mostly. There is one fishing boat left in Great Yarmouth: start forming a queue now.
What this maudlin, sanctimonious bout of petting-zoo food rights leads to is simply exporting the moral problem. We ban the manufacture of veal, but not the consumption of it. So it is made in Holland, and we drive it back in lorries. We improved pigs’ rights, so our pork comes from Poland. Intensive chickens will be reared by the hungrier nations of the EU, and we will buy them back. And if you aim to make food contented, bespoke and rare, well, that’s just fine and dandy, but, please, will you tell the rest of us what parts of the world you’re planning on ethically starving to death.
I’m thinking of starting a campaign to repatriate chickens to their natural home: India.”
09 June 2008, 09:51 PM
#14
Well, after Hugh had his Chicken Out show aired, sales of 'Free range' chicken were increasing, as people do give a damn. Just because the animals are to be consumed by people, it doesn't give us the right to treat them in the inhumane way they are treated in such a short life span.
Would you leave your dog or cat stuck in such cramped conditions that it would end up getting so fat it couldn't stand or even get pressure sores from where it cannot stand as well ?
A life is a life, even if they are destined for the table, they deserve it to be decent for the little time they are alive.
Would you leave your dog or cat stuck in such cramped conditions that it would end up getting so fat it couldn't stand or even get pressure sores from where it cannot stand as well ?
A life is a life, even if they are destined for the table, they deserve it to be decent for the little time they are alive.
09 June 2008, 10:14 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post